Advice Needed - Plumber Demanding Extra Money

[Stephen19]

There is a further tool I use when somebody calls for a free quote.

I ask if they have received any quotes and if they are CORGI registered. usually they will tell me what their current quotes have come to. If they are less then I tell them we cannot compete with that and if they wish us to still come and quote and advise on whats required it will be a chargeable visit.

If the other quotes are higher then i usually will go there because it sounds as if we might get the job.

What I dont want to waste my time on, is going there free only to be told that plumberski is about half my price.

Tony

From a customers viewpoint (not a plumbers) this is a sensible approach. However, I would be restrictive in the information that I would give out prior to another plumber coming to quote. Each quote would be confidential. For me, the plumber himself, how he acts, behaves, discusses the options and then quotes pfofessionally matter a great deal. Does he even turn up when he says he will? Is he presentable? When can he do the work? How busy is he? All these little things count .... for me. Along with all the proper qualifications to do the job and ideally a friends/neighbours recomendation. Its not only about the price as seems to be the thread here.
Finally, I would never ever consider hiring someone like Campus! My word...what planet is he on....you work in the service industry and should understand that. If this creates a load of flames, then so be it. I would always always get up to 3 quotes for ANY job for prettt much EVERYTHING....and for some things one or two may be on the phone. Even then, you get an idea about professionalism and politeness and knowledge, esp if they are happy to talk and give you a few minutes and ask some pertinent questions back. Taking time to really understand your problem/job. Rather than simply giving the impression that they just want to get off the phone asap.

 

[Agile]

Thats all very sensible. I give plenty of time to discuss the problems on the phone. But I will give a budgetary quote first but I then expect the customer to give me a good indication of any other quotes.

Sometimes customers just dont understand how much time we can waste on a quote visit. In London the average time to get anywhere is about an hour! Then we have to get back.

What we may look like if calling after a day in a dirty loft can be rather dischevelled! Dont expect someone to be neat and clean after that kind of job! However, see if the hair is neatly cut and the person talks intelligently about the problem...

I am often very suspicious of anyone who MUST always go to give a quote for the most minor of jobs. I can quote on the phone for any job. Someone who can't might never have done it before OR might be sizing you up to see how much you can be "taken for" !

BUT... those of us who are busy cannot come at an exact time! We cannot leave a job unfinished if its a boiler repair. The London traffic is totally unpredictable too. So dont expect us to come at any particular set tiime. I get over this problem by calling when I am ready to set out to confirm the likely arrival time is going to be convenient.

Tony

 

[ollski]

get more than one quote

I really wish there was a law against this commonplace and yet incredibly anti-social piece of 'advice'.

Consider the effect of getting two quotes...

1. Two people attend, thereby using time and fuel.
2. Two people spend time assessing the job, working out a quote, putting it in writing, and sending it.
3. One of those people will never get the work.
4. Both quoters build the cost of quoting into their overheads, and recover it on each job.
5. Every customer who uses those tradespeople pays for the cost of two quotes.

If everyone got three quotes for every job done, then every customer would pay for the cost of three quotes for every job done.

What an unbelievably stupid, stupid, STUPID, waste of the country's resources.

I suppose there could be a national register of agreed fixed price jobs which would negate the need for multiple quotes but as there isn't one we need to be protected from the less honest members of our profession.

 

[Softus]

get more than one quote

I really wish there was a law against this commonplace and yet incredibly anti-social piece of 'advice'.

How otherwise does the customer know if he is getting value for money and paying the going rate for the job?

Your use of the word "otherwise" implies that you think the getting of multiple quotes delivers certainty of getting value for money.

It doesn't.

If you get a bunch of quotes that are all broadly the same amount, then I can see why you'd be tempted to think that none of them is overpriced, but you haven't discovered whether or not the contractor is prompt, reliable, clean, tidy, honest, trustworthy, technically competent, likely to be trading for long enough to honour their warranty, likely to bother to honour their warranty, to name but some of many criteria on which customers judge contentedness with the job done.

Or are you suggesting that it does not matter whom you employ, (provided it is not BG, who will rip everyone off and charge twice what an independent charges; in which case you should get other quotes)?

From which part of the following have you managed to infer that I think it doesn't matter?

2. The correct way, IMHO, for you to engage a contractor is to obtain a set of recommendations from people you yourself already trust. These may be family members, neighbours, friends, colleagues, or another contractor.

And FYI, a customer doesn't "employ" a contractor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

OK, so it adds one or two percent to the cost of a job, but I, the customer, have reduced the cost by 25%; and it's my hard earned money.

Please explain your calculation of 25%. Also, please explain why you think that the true cost of a quotation at, say, £25, is merely two percent of changing a kitchen tap charged at, say, £150 including the tap.

Or are you suggesting that people get quotes only for jobs that they [somehow] know will cost more than £1,249.99?

The typical customer installing a new central heating system has no idea what he wants, apart from a warm house, so he is completely at the mercy of the person he employs.

Indeed. So please explain how the process of obtaining a variety of quotes result in any increased certainty, bearing in mind that a written budgetary estimate from one installer (and one only) that specifies the boiler make and model will provide the same amount of technical information as a quotation would, and for significantly less effort.

This is why so many employ BG: they trust them and know they will be around if something does go wrong

And do you think that those customers get a bunch of quotes knowing that they're going to use BG anyway? If so, what's the point of them getting quotes? And if not, what's the point of your statement?

In the current economic climate, with house builders laying off staff in their thousands and the threat of a recession, every sensible person is going to be very careful how they spend their money, if they spend it at all. This means that they will be even more inclined to get several quotes for a job.

If you say so - I suppose you must know more than I do about how customers are likely to behave when under "threat of a recession". Mind you, more traders will have more time on their hands to spend doing free quotes, so maybe everyone's a winner.

If the tradesman wants to survive and not join the ranks of failed businesses, he will have to provide realistic prices.

I beg to differ. I know many contractors - the good ones are currently busier than ever, and the sh*te ones are scratching around for work. It breaks my heart.

 

[D_Hailsham]

And FYI, a customer doesn't "employ" a contractor. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The dictionary defines "employ" as: "give work to (someone) and pay them for it" or even "make use of".

Please explain your calculation of 25%.

What makes you think it was a calculation?

Also, please explain why you think that the true cost of a quotation at, say, £25, is merely two percent of changing a kitchen tap charged at, say, £150 including the tap.

Or are you suggesting that people get quotes only for jobs that they [somehow] know will cost more than £1,249.99?

No, I am assuming that most customers are sensible and will only get quotes when they think it is worth doing so.

So please explain how the process of obtaining a variety of quotes result in any increased certainty, bearing in mind that a written budgetary estimate from one installer (and one only) that specifies the boiler make and model will provide the same amount of technical information as a quotation would, and for significantly less effort.

Ah! the estimate versus quotation debate.

I need a new boiler, so I phone up someone recommended by a friend I can trust and ask for a budgetary estimate for a new boiler. The person says, "Oh. about £2000 should be OK" On the strength of that I give him the job.

He comes along and starts work. The next thing I know is that he says: "You are going to need to replace X and fit an additional Y and I have not included that in my price. It will cost you another £500." And there is nothing I can do about it. He only gave me an ESTIMATE

If, on the other hand, I had insisted on a written quotation, I would not have received a nasty shock when I got the bill.

And do you think that those customers get a bunch of quotes knowing that they're going to use BG anyway? If so, what's the point of them getting quotes? And if not, what's the point of your statement?

You have missed the point completely. Customers have such faith in BG that they employ (see above) them without considering whether they should find someone cheaper to the job.

 

[Softus]

The dictionary defines "employ" as: "give work to (someone) and pay them for it" or even "make use of".

Precisely; and that's exactly what isn't happening when you engage the services of a contractor.

Please explain your calculation of 25%.

What makes you think it was a calculation?

Fair point; I was being presumptuous.

Please explain the derivation of your figure of 25%.

Also, please explain why you think that the true cost of a quotation at, say, £25, is merely two percent of changing a kitchen tap charged at, say, £150 including the tap.

Or are you suggesting that people get quotes only for jobs that they [somehow] know will cost more than £1,249.99?

No, I am assuming that most customers are sensible and will only get quotes when they think it is worth doing so.

I foresee that many customers, whether or not you think it's sensible of them, will [ill-advisedly] seek a quotation for, say, replacing a bathroom suite comprising bath, basin, and WC. Such a job would easily cost substantially less than £1,250.00, making a mockery of your suggestion that the cost of quoting is as low as 1-2% of the total job price.

My underlying point was that the attempt to predict the proportional cost of quoting is pointless. For simple jobs it's a relatively stable and small amount, e.g. £25, and for large jobs it can be quite substantial, e.g. £100-200. In the days when I was employed (i.e. an employee), the act of tendering, in some cases, would cost my employer a huge and unbilled amount, i.e. many thousands of pounds. All such costs had to be recovered via overheads, which applies to all businesses regardless of size and turnover.

So please explain how the process of obtaining a variety of quotes result in any increased certainty, bearing in mind that a written budgetary estimate from one installer (and one only) that specifies the boiler make and model will provide the same amount of technical information as a quotation would, and for significantly less effort.

Ah! the estimate versus quotation debate.

I need a new boiler, so I phone up someone recommended by a friend I can trust and ask for a budgetary estimate for a new boiler. The person says, "Oh. about £2000 should be OK" On the strength of that I give him the job.

Well both of you would be stupid to rely on that without him paying a visit.

He comes along and starts work. The next thing I know is that he says: "You are going to need to replace X and fit an additional Y and I have not included that in my price. It will cost you another £500." And there is nothing I can do about it. He only gave me an ESTIMATE

And what, precisely, would you want to be able to "do about it"? Did you even ask what risk there was of the price being wrong? Did you confirm your shared understanding of what "budgetary estimate" means? Did you allocate any extra funds as a contingency, knowing that unforeseen aspects can easily be found after the job starts, even when the job is quoted? Or did you just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best?

If, on the other hand, I had insisted on a written quotation, I would not have received a nasty shock when I got the bill.

It wouldn't have made any difference. At the point of discovering the need to replace "X" the contractor would have stopped and explained the additional costs, and pointed out that his quotation did not include replacing it.

I think you're being naive, or otherwise deliberately obtuse. Or do you think that quotations generally include a clause that requires the contractor to fund the cost of anything whose replacement has not been foreseen but that is discovered after work has started, and that has not been allowed for in the quoted cost?

If you don't think that, then who would you expect to pay for the replacement of "X" when you're holding a fixed-price quotation in your hand?

And do you think that those customers get a bunch of quotes knowing that they're going to use BG anyway? If so, what's the point of them getting quotes? And if not, what's the point of your statement?

You have missed the point completely. Customers have such faith in BG that they engage them without considering whether they should find someone cheaper to the job.

Oh I don't think it's me who'd missed the point - you scampered exactly in the direction that I hoped you would.

If some people can trust BG so completely, then can other people have similar trust in other contractors? It's a rhetorical question, just in case you're tempted, because I know the answer to be "yes".

 

[Agile]

I need a new boiler, so I phone up someone recommended by a friend I can trust and ask for a budgetary estimate for a new boiler. The person says, "Oh. about £2000 should be OK" On the strength of that I give him the job.

He comes along and starts work. The next thing I know is that he says: "You are going to need to replace X and fit an additional Y and I have not included that in my price. It will cost you another £500." And there is nothing I can do about it. He only gave me an ESTIMATE

If, on the other hand, I had insisted on a written quotation, I would not have received a nasty shock when I got the bill.

.

Actually thats not the case!

The written quote would be based on the work apparently required.

If during that work the need for "X" and "Y" became apparent then that would still be an additional £500 which had not been forseen on the initial visit.

I always give a written quote to be signed as agreed but thats to protect me from cowboy customers. There are many people who do work quite satisfactorily on verbal estimates and they get paid without any argument.

Tony

 

[D_Hailsham]

The dictionary defines "employ" as: "give work to (someone) and pay them for it" or even "make use of".

Precisely; and that's exactly what isn't happening when you engage the services of a contractor.

That's just semantics. If I am paying someone to do a job for me, I am employing him. If you want to call it "engage the services of", who am I to disagree with you. The effect is still the same.

Please explain the derivation of your figure of 25%.

I think you are, deliberately, missing the point; and, if you can not see what it is, I cant be bothered explaining it to you.

My underlying point was that the attempt to predict the proportional cost of quoting is pointless. For simple jobs it's a relatively stable and small amount, e.g. £25, and for large jobs it can be quite substantial, e.g. £100-200. In the days when I was employed (i.e. an employee), the act of tendering, in some cases, would cost my employer a huge and unbilled amount, i.e. many thousands of pounds. All such costs had to be recovered via overheads, which applies to all businesses regardless of size and turnover.

I was not trying to predict the proportional cost of quoting, I was just giving an example of what could happen. I agree that tendering costs can be very high and have to be recovered in one way or another; and everybody realizes this. But, provided everyone works to the same rules, nobody loses out.

Well both of you would be stupid to rely on that without him paying a visit.

But this sort of thing happens.

And what, precisely, would you want to be able to "do about it"? Did you even ask what risk there was of the price being wrong? Did you confirm your shared understanding of what "budgetary estimate" means? Did you allocate any extra funds as a contingency, knowing that unforeseen aspects can easily be found after the job starts, even when the job is quoted? Or did you just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best?

Personally, I would never accept an "estimate", but there are plenty of gullible customers who do; and they are the first to shout when the job cost twice what they expected. Some unscrupulous contractors will pay a visit to a customer, assess the work and then submit an "estimate", purely so they can add on "extras" which have already been included in the price. Which is one reason why I do not like "all inclusive" prices. If The estimate/quotation has everything, listed the contractor cannot say, later, that he forgot to include the price of a new HW cylinder (example only!).

At the point of discovering the need to replace "X" the contractor would have stopped and explained the additional costs, and pointed out that his quotation did not include replacing it.

I was deliberately using a "worst case" scenario. If a contractor is asked to provide a quotation, he will want to check everything before he commits himself in writing. If he says that X needs replacing I would want to know why he did not realize this when he originally visited. If he can convince me that he had no way of knowing that X needed replacing until he tested it, or if X had a fault which was not readily visible, I would accept this and pay the extra.

I think you're being naive

Naive, no. Careful, yes.

Oh I don't think it's me who'd missed the point - you scampered exactly in the direction that I hoped you would.

But you would say that, wouldn't you! Anything to show that you are one up on everyone else.

If some people can trust BG so completely, then can other people have similar trust in other contractors?

Who ever suggested otherwise. The point is that the "captive" customers of BG, or any other contractor, do not know that they are being charged a premium for the service they receive if they do not bother to get comparative quotes. If they still decide to accept the BG price, they will have made an informed choice and decided to pay the extra money for their own peace of mind.

 

[Softus]

The dictionary defines "employ" as: "give work to (someone) and pay them for it" or even "make use of".

Precisely; and that's exactly what isn't happening when you engage the services of a contractor.

That's just semantics. If I am paying someone to do a job for me, I am employing him.

It isn't semantics. If you employ someone then you're legally bound by the provisions of The Employment Act and its many related statutes.

If you want to call it "engage the services of", who am I to disagree with you.

You're someone who has used the wrong word to refer to the contract with a contractor.

The effect is still the same.

It very much isn't. If you were to employ someone then you would have a contract of employment with that person. If you engage the services of a contractor then you are protected by specific provisions of consumer legislation and Contract Law.

How you can think that they're the same thing is beyond me.

Please explain the derivation of your figure of 25%.

I think you are, deliberately, missing the point; and, if you can not see what it is, I cant be bothered explaining it to you.

Well, I can't see where 25% comes from, ergo, by your own admission, you are lazy.

I was not trying to predict the proportional cost of quoting, I was just giving an example of what could happen. I agree that tendering costs can be very high and have to be recovered in one way or another; and everybody realizes this.

In that case we're agreed on that point, and I apologise for not realising it sooner.

But, provided everyone works to the same rules, nobody loses out.

Nope - you've lost me again. My first point on this subject was, and remains, the issue of wasted time. The only entity that gains from the game of competitive quoting (for smallish jobs) is the government. Naturally we are all benefactors of the revenue paid to the government, but in this case the tax paid on the income received for quoting is at a level that is easily swallowed up by the cost of collecting that tax. And let's not forget that the unused quotations went into the bin, and provided no benefit whatsoever.

In summary, time, and fuel, and paper, and printer ink, is all used, money changes hands, tax is paid, and nothing has changed. Nothing has been constructed, or repaired, or exported, or led to a new qualification for anyone involved, and the life of anyone involved in the process is not enriched in any way.

It's a colossal waste of the nation's resources, and you appear to not get that.

Well both of you would be stupid to rely on that without him paying a visit.

But this sort of thing happens.

So what? And the point that Agile made so prismatically clear is that a quotation does nothing to protect you from that happenstance.

And what, precisely, would you want to be able to "do about it"? Did you even ask what risk there was of the price being wrong? Did you confirm your shared understanding of what "budgetary estimate" means? Did you allocate any extra funds as a contingency, knowing that unforeseen aspects can easily be found after the job starts, even when the job is quoted? Or did you just stick your head in the sand and hope for the best?

Personally, I would never accept an "estimate", but there are plenty of gullible customers who do; and they are the first to shout when the job cost twice what they expected.

Reputable contractors make accurate estimates, and don't double the estimated cost. You seem to keep deviating from my postulate that only recommended contractors be used, and prefer to sketch out various rogue trader scenarios that have nothing to do with anything. And right on cue, here you go with another one...

Some unscrupulous contractors will pay a visit to a customer, assess the work and then submit an "estimate", purely so they can add on "extras" which have already been included in the price.

And some elephants are grey, which is just as relevant as your point.

Which is one reason why I do not like "all inclusive" prices. If The estimate/quotation has everything, listed the contractor cannot say, later, that he forgot to include the price of a new HW cylinder (example only!).

Tell you what then, since your life seems to be filled by engaging the services of charlatans and idiots - you do the work. You get off your ar*e and list all the things that you think a crook or incompetent is missing out of his quotation or estimate, and put that list in your letter of acceptance of the quotation. Then you can't complain that it's been disguised, and you can't complain that you're being charged for the time spent preparing the list.

You do put your acceptance in writing, don't you? I mean, you don't rely on anything verbal, surely?

At the point of discovering the need to replace "X" the contractor would have stopped and explained the additional costs, and pointed out that his quotation did not include replacing it.

I was deliberately using a "worst case" scenario. If a contractor is asked to provide a quotation, he will want to check everything before he commits himself in writing. If he says that X needs replacing I would want to know why he did not realize this when he originally visited. If he can convince me that he had no way of knowing that X needed replacing until he tested it, or if X had a fault which was not readily visible, I would accept this and pay the extra.

You're getting a bit too big for your boots. It isn't you who needs to be "convinced" - you wouldn't have any choice but to pay up if the charge could be shown at court to be reasonable.

Oh I don't think it's me who'd missed the point - you scampered exactly in the direction that I hoped you would.

But you would say that, wouldn't you!

Indeed I would, since it's correct.

But that response of yours is just a smoke screen; a thin one that fails to hide the fact that you shot yourself in the foot.

Anything to show that you are one up on everyone else.

I didn't realise that this was a game of oneupmanship. And I didn't realise that part of this debate was to second-guess each other's motivation for the views being held. You're on your own with that; I'm interested only in verity and accuracy, and you're consistently deviating from both.

If some people can trust BG so completely, then can other people have similar trust in other contractors?

Who ever suggested otherwise.

Everyone who believes that multiple quoting is a sensible practice is implicitly suggesting otherwise.

The point is that the "captive" customers of BG, or any other contractor, do not know that they are being charged a premium for the service they receive if they do not bother to get comparative quotes. If they still decide to accept the BG price, they will have made an informed choice and decided to pay the extra money for their own peace of mind.

It's curious that you repeatedly associate "bothering" with the practice of multiple quoting, as if anyone who doesn't want to do it is lazy. To me it's a conscious decision, based on the point I keep making (and you keep ignoring), which is that multiple quoting wastes everybody's time and everyone's money.

 

[Softus]

I suppose there could be a national register of agreed fixed price jobs which would negate the need for multiple quotes but as there isn't one we need to be protected from the less honest members of our profession.

ollski, how does multiple quoting protect anyone the dishonest tradespeople?
____________________________

get more than one quote

I really wish there was a law against this commonplace and yet incredibly anti-social piece of 'advice'.

How otherwise does the customer know if he is getting value for money and paying the going rate for the job?

Your use of the word "otherwise" implies that you think the getting of multiple quotes delivers certainty of getting value for money.

How does it do that?

 

[clf-gas]

Top and bottom of all this is customer should only be billed for extra materials used to position boiler in loft, as original quote was for kitchen position. That said if a site survey was carried out then the installer should of seen this and carried the materials at his cost.

Whats the big debate about, if you get a quote wrong then its your fault for not writing in for hidden extras. wish I was quite enough to go out quoting like you chaps, but im very much like Agile, if I cant guestimate around their mid quote Im not going

Anyway hello chaps, long time no post

 

[Softus]

Top and bottom of all this is customer should only be billed for extra materials used to position boiler in loft, as original quote was for kitchen position.

The contractor is entitled to charge for any extra materials and labour needed to site the boiler in the loft.

That said if a site survey was carried out then the installer should of seen this and carried the materials at his cost.

If the contractor made a mistake at the surveying stage, then that's embarrassing, and he could have chosen to offer a reduced price for the extra, as a gesture of goodwill, but he's under no obligation to compensate the customer for an expense that was unforeseen and yet unavoidable.

Whats the big debate about, if you get a quote wrong then its your fault for not writing in for hidden extras.

Er, hidden?

Anyway hello chaps, long time no post

Hello.

 

[gas4you]

My quotes are for a boiler to be fitted in a requested position. I always make clear to the prospective customer that if they want it in a different position after the quote it is extra.

However if as in this case it was not physically possible to fit the boiler in this position, as I had quoted, then unfortunately for me I would absorb the cost as it would have been my mistake during the site visit.

A smaller example would be my current boiler swap, I missed that the room stat was in the kitchen/diner, so I have fitted an R/F stat in the lounge, no extra charge parts or labour. it was my fault, we all make errors, thats what keeps us human.

 

[ChrisR]

none of these things can be determined by asking for a quotation.

That was from a few pages ago now - exactly what "these things" were doesn't matter, my view is that I would get say 3 quotes for something expensive that I didn't know much about.
It isn't only the technical aspects you can compare, but we're all pretty good at weighing someone up when we're talking to them.

Not only are we pretty good at it, I think we all think we're very good at it, so the confidence in the chap we eventually go for is higher, and everybody gets along better.

The best piece of advice I ever had was from an older tradesman, who said that as soon as you get a bad feeling about someone, be on your guard. If you get a second reason to worry, walk away from the job, even if you lose a little. Things aren't usually that easy, but there's a lot of good sense behind what he was saying.

Estimates by phone are a good idea, I think. That way the customer knows you aren't bumping the price up because of something you see about their situation.

 

[Softus]

I would say that trust is essential, and the cornerstone for that can be laid by getting a recommendation and then meeting the person.

There's nothing wrong with disliking, or not getting on with, the first contractor who's been recommended, and then arranging to see someone else instead. That doesn't intentionally waste anyone's time, whereas starting out with the plan of seeing more than one person does.